Talk:Digital media use and mental health/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Digital media use and mental health/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 04:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In preparing this for a nomination, the nominator removed a cleanup banner at the top of the article, but Treetear has reinstated it arguing that it was still valid. The cleanup is "may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material", and at first I was confused because there are a reasonable number of images, all seemingly properly licensed. It's not the images. The issue (on which I agree with Treetear) is that this article is a massive quote farm, with many paragraphs (including the first three) consisting almost entirely of the words of the article's sources, with only a little bit of uninformative new prose connecting them. Although it's a debatable issue, quoting to excess (so that the article is not so much in our own editor's words, but just repeating the words of its sources) can easily be interpreted as a problem of copyright (WP:GAFAIL #1 and WP:GACR #2d). It is problematic from the point of view of being good quality prose (GACR #1). The fact that there is a clear dispute over this issue means that the article is not adequately stable (GACR #5). And, although I'm not certain of the "unquestionably" part of "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid" (GAFAIL #3), it certainly had and still has cleanup banners that I agree are valid. Altogether, I think this is not ready for its GA nomination. I think it would greatly benefit from an attempt to digest and synthesize its sources rather than regurgitating them in big chunks. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

True thankyou very much. With such a difficult topic it has been hard to justify the existence of the article, hence the overquotations initially. I am as needed attempting to paraphrase the experts, and as always collaboration is neccessary. E.3 (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Digital media use and mental health/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll start this in a bit.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject, apart from news reports. I do think it is a very essential subject, and will be more and more so in the near future.

Overview

1. Prose:
  • No copyright violations. The article has many quotes, but they appear to have a proper function.
  • The article reads reasonably smoothly and professional, but the structure of the article is unclear. It isn't quite clear why you organized the content in this manner. Below I will do a detailed review of the prose.
  •  Comment: Thanks, being an emerging topic, with each discipline approaching from different angles, that's why the bulk of the article is under "disciplinary perspectives". How would yourself or others structure it? I can reorganise under different headings in my sandbox, but I'll wait your further comments, thank you very much! --E.3 (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
2. MOS: The Further Reading section should come after the References section.  Done --E.3 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
3. References layout: References can be identified. No dead links, except for the Think Differently about Kids website, which cannot be accessed from my location, which is Europe. I can access the archived version, though.  Done --E.3 (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Reliable sources: In general, these are very reliable. There are a number of blogs cited, of which I am not sure whether these are due.
5. Original research: None found.
6. Broadness: Yes.
7. Focus: Some examples raised seem too detailed and random.  Comment: which specifically? Thanks --E.3 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) I've done a fair bit of editing trying to address the focus and removing some unnecessary detail, addressing some flow and sourcing issues, thanks :) --E.3 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral: Yes.
9. Stable: article is stable.
10-11. Pics: Relevant and licensed.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like  Done,  Doing...,  Not done, minus Removed, plus Added, and  Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Writing looks professional. But the organization may need some tweaking.

Lead

  • I will get back to this later, but just to start with: per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain any information that is not in the body of the text. The information should be in the body of the text as well, and the lead should only summarize the body, without any citations—these are in the body. {{done}} had another go at it, will put some DSM/ICD details after some more research tomorrow --E.3 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Only synonyms of the title of the article should be in bold in the lead.  Done. --E.3 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
digital media overuse is not synonymous with the title.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  Done --E.3 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
* redrafted the first paragraph of the lead and the infobox here addressing below concerns --E.3 (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

History and terminology

  • It isn't clear what you mean by origins, since you are not describing the origin of words from the title of the article such as digital media. Perhaps history is more to the point.  Done have a better version updated, will have a look with fresh eyes tomorrow --E.3 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Done --E.3 (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You are writing in British or Indian English (behaviour). You should inform other editors of this editorial choice by putting the template {{use British English}} (or Indian English) on the top of the article.  Done {{use British English}} is under discussion for deletion, I have put {{British English}} in the talk page in the interim --E.3 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The quote is a bit confusing, since it is incomplete: (within societal conception of new media).  Done --E.3 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Founded in current research ... You immediately start by a conclusion that the consequences of digital media use are adverse. You should start with a more neutral premise first.  Fixed New sentences here --E.3 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This still isn't a neutral broad statement introducing the relationship between digital media and mental health.Proliferation, concerns, compulsive behaviours and problems all imply that the article approaches this subject from a certain angle. In the first sentences of the article, and in a section with a broad heading title (History and terminology), you should start with a broader question first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
* Thanks, I have rejigged the first few sentences. The difficulty lies also in not providing false balance to the benefits of digital media use, which has not been comprehensively established scientifically, other than in treatment of mental health conditions, although there is plenty of expert opinion out there. At best we know that moderate use may not be intrinsically harmful. This is why although the article is focused on the overuse phenomena, I have attempted to add all relevant caveats. Thanks :) --E.3 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • not providing false balance You can simply start by saying that the relationship between digital media use and mental health is complex, or is multi-faceted, or has been studied from different angels. IMHO it is a bit odd to start the first sentence of the article describing compulsive behaviors, when you have not yet properly introduced the topics in its entirety. My point is not that you need to describe positive effects of digital media by all means, but rather that the structure of the article looks as though the original topic of the article was not Digital media use and mental health, but addiction or something like that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
* Thanks I have reworded the first sentence. The terminology of the title is the most difficult, as each paper seems to use different terminology – see mobile phone overuse which is predominantly called problematic smartphone use in most of the literature, video game addiction which APA calls internet gaming disorder and ICD calls gaming disorder. "Conceptual minefield" seems to be the most apt description I've seen in the literature – and I don't anticipate it being delineated by any expert body soon. So the title is intentionally broad so that the overview can be provided using the best sources available (regardless of the source terminology). --E.3 (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • internet overuse how is this defined in the literature?  Fixed Not standardised or universally recognised --E.3 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • curvilinear relationship wikilink?  Doing... Correlation_and_dependence#Correlation and linearity is the best I can find --E.3 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • to a 2018 UK parliamentary committee You mean, in a report to this committee?  Comment: no I mean that experts and NGOs reported this to the committee. The committee report simply stated that they said this overall --E.3 (talk)
  • caveats of researchers caveats is not often applied to people. What do you mean exactly?  Comment: I mean if they published a caveat to their research, this is often misunderstood. Changed to "published by researchers" --13:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This has led experts to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a unified phenomenon, with some calling to delineate proposed disorders based on individual online activity Italicised terms are vague and have to be rephrased.  Done --E.3 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Childhood technology use Assessment and treatment considerations

  • The position of this section appears to be unusual. Perhaps you should include it in the subsection on Psychology, or in a later section on policy or applications.
  •  Done I have retitled it to "assessment and treatment considerations", moving a little of the content, what do you think? --E.3 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Better, but perhaps this section should be placed later in the article. I'll check later.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • as taking away digital devices may also have a detrimental effect I suppose you are referring to the fact that children unacquainted with technology will not be able to keep up with peers, but it isn't clear, it's too brief.  Done --E.3 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, in the first sentence you start by presuming that the article is about overuse, but the subject matter is broader than that.  Comment: I think assessment and treatment would usually refer to problematic use. Minor rephrasing at present. Most published data is about problematic use, or associations with mental health symptoms. --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • guidelines have been criticised in lacking evidence You mean, not being drawn from evidence?  Fixed to not being evidence based --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is some limited evidence ... Limited evidence as to the effectiveness?  Fixed Yes --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • by a 2019 United Kingdom Please move this to the front of the sentence, so its is clear that you are not talking about the 2016 study.  Done --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is preliminary evidence that mental health problems can be effectively treated through interventions delivered digitally This is quite relevant, can you expand?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)  Doing... - perhaps this can be a different section, will have a think tomorrow, but for the interim what do you think of the section title Assessment and treatment considerations? --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Concerns exist over the effects of media use on children Weasel phrase, please specify.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)  Comment: what do you think of simply naming it what it is without editorialising? --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Digital interventions in mental health

  • with stress showing the highest effect size Please clarify a bit for the layman that you mean reduction of stress.  Done --E.3 (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Disciplinary perspectives

  • of these issues For the purpose of clarity, please reiterate which issues you mean.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • many disciplines continue to work scholars in many disciplines continue to work?  Fixed —E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • risks and challenges Avoid challenges in this sense, per WP:WTW  Fixed—E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed deleted this part of the sentence as it is essentially duplicating the first part of the sentence --E.3 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Digital anthropology Psychology

  • was described as the "highest quality" evidence What did the evidence prove exactly?
plus Added*That study concluded that modest digital media use may have little adverse affects, and even some positive associations in terms of well-being. now in the text --E.3 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Radeski and Christiakis (the 2019 editor of JAMA Pediatrics) Please mention Christiakis' name from the first instance you mention him.plus Added --E.3 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Digital anthropology

  • The first paragraph does not seem that relevant. How many sources discuss this in the context of the subject matter?
  • The University College London offers a free five-week course in relation to this, entitled Anthropology of Social Media: Why we Post, as well as offering other free e-books in relation to the issue less relevant, please delete. or move to new section external links.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC) minus Removed --E.3 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Digital sociology

Interesting information.

  • Digital sociology, overlapping with digital anthropology and considering cultural geographies, explores "the ways in which people interact with and use digital media using both qualitative methodologies (such as interviews, focus groups and ethnographic research) Sentence is a bit messy, please split up in multiple sentences.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • revealed that the level of religiosity has a significant effect weasel phrase, please specify.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Still, not very clear.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC) plus Added --E.3 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • up to three hours more please include "... than higher income youths" Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Guardian Media Group The name of the newspaper is better known. Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It also investigates the various contextualisations of longstanding concerns in relation to young people's dependence on "these technologies I understand what you mean, but it reads a bit too complex for wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • They considered that these same vulnerable group... If researchers speculate on something without any evidence yet, write consider. If they've already found evidence, write something along the lines of found, discovered or a 1993 study showed, etc. Researchers noting something doesn't imply evidence either. Speculation by reliable sources can be included in a wikipedia article, but just be clear whether it's speculation or findings you're talking about.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • digital divide amongst the vulnerable Perhaps I misunderstand, but do you not mean digital divide between the vulnerable and the not vulnerable''?  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Three journalists First, you have to introduce the moral panic you're talking about first. You mention it briefly in the lead, but you never really explain what kind of moral panic occurred. Secondly, it isn't quite clear how search engines focusing on popularity lead to moral panic. It would seem you are skipping one or more variables here. Thirdly, stating that Google only uses popularity as a sorting criterion needs multiple good sources, since it flies against what is generally known about Google, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC) minus Removed I'm going to remove the journalists as they're not experts. There's a plethora of expert opinion referring to moral panic but I think I'll just leave it to the one internet addiction review in history and terminology. --E.3 (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Psychiatry Psychology and psychiatry

 Comment: on rereading, it may be worth combining psychology and psychiatry as this article has evolved, as there isn't really a clear difference in terms of investigators as far as I can tell. Digital anthropology is clearly a separate field as is digital sociology. What do you think? --E.3 (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I have put a combination of the two disciplines in my sandbox here for your thoughts. --E.3 (talk)
  •  Fixed merged --E.3 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Neuroscience

  • Please review whether consider is the right verb here, as explained above.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • so far the neural mechanisms and biological underpinnings of excessive digital media use are unknown Please indicate timeframe, per WP:WTW. E.g.: "As of 2017..."--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --09:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Response of large technology firms

Technology

  • This section is about responses from technology firms, which is not a discipline. So please restructure the sections.
  •  Doing... Major restructure in latest edit, probably needs further discussion --E.3 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • whatever it takes to make (social media) safer online especially for (young people) I wasn't able to trace this quote in the cited source. Am I overlooking something?  Comment: it is in the video. He says "this" meaning "social media" and "youngsters" meaning "young people" --E.3 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)  Comment: for complete clarity, the quote is at 5:09 in the video, "what we have to do, is, of course, is, as I say, look at this from top to bottom, without any prejudice, we will do whatever it takes, to make this environment safer online particularly for youngsters." The interview began with discussions about a specific mental health case. As this is about the period that Facebook changed its stance in regard to government regulation, referred to in the same interview, I considered this a major quote by Nick Clegg. As you can see in this diff of social media addiction, "Facebook “has come out hard against the concept of an algorithm regulator, describing the proposal as "unworkable", "unnecessary" and "unprecedented".” one month prior. Admittedly, they are not directly inviting government regulation in regard to mental health at this stage as far as I know. --13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
So is the quote taken verbatim from the interview, or is it paraphrased using other words?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just replaced "youngsters" with (young people) and "this environment" with (social media) --E.3 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If you are paraphrasing, don't use quotes; if you are quoting, quote word-for-word.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • incorporated it as "screen time" Please specify that it measures screen time.  Fixed —E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • forcing it In British English, isn't they more commonly used for organizations?  Fixed —E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • has been investigated in some surveys Please specify for what it has been investigated.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Two large investors Who?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Second reading

Much has changed now. I will have to review the article again. The copy-editing will be less than in the first reading. I'll try to be brief and as helpful as possible to not make the review too long.

  • I'm happy for as long as you need and as many comments as possible. Many kind thanks indeed --E.3 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

History and terminology

  • Internet addiction has been considered as a diagnosis since the mid 1990s That's a weasel phrase. If it has been established as a diagnosis, please say so. If it hasn't, leave it out. To consider means they're no conclusions yet. You might also want to use the word consider a little less: there are 29 instances in this article. Style is not part of GA though.
  •  Fixed Yes I've removed a lot of the "considers" for style purposes. --E.3 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll change this one to proposed, which seems to be consensus in related articles. Many propose it as a diagnosis, without universal agreement --E.3 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • inherent benefits Why would the Internet have inherent benefits? You will have to expand on that, if that's really what the study says.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It considered that ... Again, if this is a research finding, don't use consider.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • that continued established "concerns ... Can we leave out established?
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Psychological and psychiatric perspectives

No comments.

Psychiatric associations

  • The heading is a bit confusing. Normally, psychiatric associations refers to societies, etc. Can we use relations or perhaps add a word?
  • changed to mental health relationships --E.3 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The report also observed ... Did the report discover such a curvi-linear relationship? If so, please say so.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • for patients with bipolar disorder may be a "double-edged sword" You left out the subject of the sentence. Probably an edit scar.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Screen time

No comments.

Proposed diagnostic categories

No comments.

Online gambling

No comments.

Cyberbullying

No comments.

Media multitasking

No commments.

Assessment and treatment

  • rather than forcing screen time You hadn't mentioned yet that the guidelines mentioned above limit the amount of screen time.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • which have been criticised by some experts. Weasel phrase. Specify, or when not relevant enough, leave it out.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A philosophy journal Please specify.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • They considered its possible amelioration by considering Please use a more specific term than consider, in both instances.
  •  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Neuroscience

No comments.

Lead, revisited

The lead is already quite good.

  • Some experts have considered benefits of moderate digital media use in various domains You mean, they studied those benefits?  Fixed to investigated --E.3 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please add more content from the sections about 1) treatment, and 2) response from firms. It doesn't have to be much.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC) plus Added --E.3 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Broadness check

We are nearly done with the prose of the article, you have dedicated much time to it and you have improved the article much. What remains is to check whether all the subject matter has been covered in the article.

  • A review study shows that many benefits of digital use are recognized in the literature, and that you currently cover these insufficiently. Most of the negative effects mentioned do seem to have been covered in the article.
  • I understand the concern here. If we look at this review which I've included in the first few sentences, the benefits are in education, communication, exposure to new ideas, and social inclusion. Is this an effect on mental health? I don't know if I can draw that conclusion for the encyclopaedia --E.3 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • From reading scholarly literature about the subject, it seems to me you are covering the promotion of health too little. Just a first glance at the scholarly literature shows that many studies and reviews deal with it, such as this review. This does not mean that digital means of health promotion have not been reviewed critically. There is this, this, and this study by Lupton, which are cited widely. Other scholars have also been critical of digital health promotion.
  • I also think this isn't really about health promotion in general, rather mental health. --E.3 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

* These are some studies I found just looking at the first page of a Google Scholar search for "digital media" and "health". You might want to review whether you have covered all the important subjects, per GA criteria of sufficient broadness.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • thanks. However the scope of this article is not digital media and health, that would be extremely broad, including electronic health records and the like. It’s digital media use and mental health. —E.3 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess my search hasn't been refined enough. I'll have to review this again. Apologies.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
A more specific search came up with a number of subjects not yet covered. Sorry for the long list, but I can't ignore these—they are all covered in multiple sources.
  • Several health domains which are effected by digital media are mentioned in this study.
  • Yes but I already state what the study essentially concludes with more recent sources and reviews. --E.3 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I found several studies about online gambling and mental health. Here's one. I also found several on cyber-bullying, among which this one. You mention this briefly, but don't expand on it.
  • I think we can include this under psychology and psychiatry, with wikilinks to these articles --E.3 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC) plus Added with the big restructure --E.3 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You haven't covered multi-tasking yet. This and this study does. plus Added with the big restructure --E.3 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The first study is quite old. I try to use the reviews of reviews mainly and err to more recent reviews. All health effects are out of scope of this article in my opinion, and many reviews conclude the same thing, which is why I err to using more recent material and the systematic reviews of reviews, and focus on mental health associations. --E.3 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
* Is there a firm conclusion or additional text specifically from these older studies that you would prefer to include to the recent studies? The systematic map of reviews I think cites these. --E.3 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Added this article in terms of mental health showing the curvilinear relationship, passive vs active consumption etc. --E.3 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have restructured the article quite boldly to delineate problematic use so that online gambling and cyberbullying can be expanded upon. What do you think of this new structure? I will change it back if we don't think its more readable. Thanks!--E.3 (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

There may be a lot of negatives here, but in general, the article can be quickly corrected, reorganized and approved as GA. It will need a bit of your time first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Many less than anticipated, thank you very much, will have a further look in the days ahead :) --E.3 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Before I continue with the review, I'd like to know if there is any research about what positive effect digital media could have on health. The article reads as though only negative effects have been researched and found.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC) * Doing... The "goldilocks hypothesis" of moderate screen use not being intrinsically harmful was in a previous draft, and is very reliable, and is referred to in the lead. I believe it was under a previous draft under sociology. I'll put it back in. --E.3 (talk)
  • One study shows the "goldilocks hypothesis" of "just right" screen time, with their own authors concluding that "moderate digital screen use may actually be contributing positively to wellbeing by enabling and empowering people to pursue their goals, be more active, feel connected with others and enjoy life". This does get repetitively cited in reviews. However the BMJ Open systematic review of reviews states there is no net health benefits proven scientifically as of Jan 2019. This expert and the study was in a previous draft cited under sociology but perhaps due to it being only one study it was deleted due to WP:DUE. What do you think? --E.3 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done The "goldilocks hypothesis" of moderate screen use not being intrinsically harmful was in a previous draft. I think this was deleted due to being a singular study or primary source. It is often cited, considered to be very reliable etc, but the benefits of digital media use overall appear to not have been conclusively scientifically proven, rather experts opinion. --E.3 (talk)
The article used to talk about the extensive evidence that digital tools (apps, web-based services, &c.) can be effective in the treatment of many mental health problems. See Batra et al., 2017, Hollis et al., 2016, Hall et al., 2012, Andersson et al., 2014 and Lau et al., 2017 for starters. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Bondegezou, could you give me a diff of a previous version that contains content from these sources? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Those are new sources I've found now. Or there's this diff from a while back with different sources. Bondegezou (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The sources from that diff are still in the current revision. --E.3 (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: I've expanded this a little bit for now. There are several reviews out there, although personally I would avoid some of the open access content especially this one. The scope of this article as initially intended was to write about the relationship between digital media use and mental health rather than the treatment of mental health disorders using digital treatments. I think a brief overview is probably warranted here, but the released related articles such as video game addiction, or conditions such as major depressive disorder, etc could expand on the treatments, otherwise this may become very overlong. --E.3 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I will do a general check for broadness later.
I am moving this content to the talk page here, so I can assess later whether it should be included. E.3 removed it this morning.

Organisational perspectives – Non governmental organisations, support and advocacy groups provide resources to people overusing digital media, with or without codified diagnoses,[1][2] including from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.[3][4] A 2018 OECD report that considered developmental and educational risks of the internet, noting its inherent benefits. It considered that "greater social media use is associated with poorer sleep and mental health", whilst noting the benefits of structured, limited internet use in children and adolescents. It also noted an overall 40% increase in internet use in school age children between 2010 and 2015, and that different OECD nations had marked variations in childhood technology use.[5]

--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC) plus Added to the intro for the OECD report and also to the treatment for the NGO resources --E.3 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Hooked on Social Media? Help From Adults with ADHD". 2016-11-23. Retrieved 2018-12-13.
  2. ^ "ADHD and Learning Disabilities Directory: ADD Coaches, Organizers, Doctors, Schools, Camps". directory.additudemag.com. Retrieved 2019-01-09.
  3. ^ "Resources Online". ADHD Australia. Retrieved 2019-01-09.
  4. ^ "ADHD Resource Center". www.aacap.org. Retrieved 2019-01-09.
  5. ^ Cornford, Kate (2018). "Children & Young People's Mental Health in the Digital Age" (PDF). OECD.org. Retrieved 2019-03-22. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

June 2019

E.3, there are a few comments from the second reading. After you have dealt with these, we can move to the lead and wrap it up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Perfect, thank you, will do now, yes its been a thorough review process for such a difficult topic! --E.3 (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The article is very good now. Thanks for all your efforts and persistence. I am passing for GA now. Congratulations! Let me know if you do a DYK.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your persistence! It's been great. Yes I'll do a DYK, and I think I'll submit it to Wikijournal of Humanities (or Medicine if they think better there, but Humanities at this point, for further review! Thanks your help has been invaluable. --E.3 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health

(
)
A young boy engaged with a smartphone
A young boy engaged with a smartphone

Improved to Good Article status by E.3 (talk) and Farang Rak Tham (talk). Nominated by E.3 (talk) at 20:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC).

  • Although above my name is listed as an editor, I only did the GA review, and am therefore sufficiently independent to do a DYK review.
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: You are linking to sections within the article. I don't think that is possible for a DYK. If you insist, I can check with some admin, but I have never seen anyone do it. Also, ALT3 is too long. A DYK entry can't exceed 200 characters. For ALT1, I couldn't find the part in the wiki article where it says that the Goldlocks hypothesis is related to avoiding depressive symptoms and promoting overall wellbeing. So please adjust the wiki article, or remove this hook. For ALT2, the wiki article doesn't state that there is controversy about the word, just that its usefulness has been questioned. In ALT3, it is not clear what is the cause and what is the effect you are describing when you say causality. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  •  Fixed Thanks @Farang Rak Tham: I removed those ones as the hook is too hard to explain with the small amount of words. I would prefer it if it could link to the section of the article. The inline citations are in the articles, is that sufficient? Thanks --E.3 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I removed the section links --E.3 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came here from the notice at WT:DYK. If you're talking about linking social media to social media addiction and video games to video game addiction in ALT0, it's not logical, because people will think the links refer to social media and video games. Anyway, ALT0 is not written like a standard hook, in one sentence. Re ALT2, the first piped link should not be piped at all. The target article is already linked at the end of the hook. ALT4 seems like the most viable hook to me. Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I consider a version of ALT0 to be the most interesting, I edited based on this comment, and have made an ALT5 if it is more appropriate. Happy for any hook though. Thanks! --E.3 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to write the hook as one sentence, like:
  • ALT5a: ... that because females are more likely to overuse social media, and males video games, forms of problematic digital media use are likely not singular, simple phenomena?
  • But really, that's not "hooky". ALT4 has more potential IMO. Yoninah (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Yoninah for the valuable comments.
  • Approving ALT4. Main hook, ALT5 or ALT5a can be approved if you merge the two sentences, as is already done in ALT5a, and make the hook more catchier. Try using more lay language, less scholarly.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks both for that. I changed ALT5a now. I think its "hooky" because most of the research so far has predominantly focused on gaming disorder whereas social media overuse appears to affect females more. --E.3 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @E.3: it is not good form to edit the hooks after they have been approved. @Farang Rak Tham: if you have any qualms about the hook language, why are you giving it an approval tick? Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I see that Farang Rak Tham has only approved ALT4. E.3 ALT5a, like ALT5, still has scholarly language that will not "hook" casual readers, so I'm striking it. Let's just proceed with ALT4. Yoninah (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Many apologies about the lack of form, first DYK and edit conflict, no worries with ALT4, thanks a lot! --E.3 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, since I approved only one hook, and crossed out the others, it seems to me I am following guidelines. Let me know if you do see a problem, and I can learn more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No, everything you did was good, Farang Rak Tham. I was having trouble following the thread of what happened after your approval, and made my first post in error. You left the template with all unapproved hooks struck, and the nominator came back and added one. Thank you for your work. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It has become a complicated thread indeed. Thanks for responding to my questions and helping us out here, Yoninah. And thanks for processing the DYKs i did in the last months. Other language wikipedias are much less accomodating to religious subjects in DYKs, so I am happy with you and others' help here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I pulled this from queue and re-opened the nomination. There needs to be a new, uninvolved reviewer go over this. Farang Rak Tham was the GA reviewer, and is listed as one of the article's editors. In fact, the article history shows they made 46 edits. The DYK reviewer needs to be a different editor. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, could you please provide me with a link to a guideline or policy that states a GA reviewer cannot review a DYK? So I can read up and prevent mistakes next time. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It also seems to me that Yoninah has approved of the hook alt4, and he is even more independent than me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I said I liked it; I didn't review it. Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Farang Rak Tham Supplementary guidelines-Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles "H2: You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed Good Article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK). DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming articles that are subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor." — Maile (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, this nomination needs to be posted again under the appropriate date on the nominations page, which I suspect will be June, 6th. Apologies, E.3.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, and it is already reposted on June 6. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel that I should first note that multiple-sentence hooks are allowed (per I2 WP:DYKIN) though such are exceedingly rare.
  • While doing a light copy edit, I noticed there is an open-ended quotation in the third sentence of section Digital technology use in mental health care. There were also a couple places where the ellipsis should have been in square brackets [...] to show it was edited and not part of the actual quotation.
  • Approve ALT4 Article passed GA on the day of the nomination, is long enough, neutral, and well cited. Spot check of online citations is good; AGF for offline sources. No copyvio or close paraphrasing detected. QPQ verified. The image file is tagged with a CC licence, interesting, discernible at low resolution, is in the article and encyclopedically illustrative. (Although technically, the picture is of a child while the hook mentions youths.) ALT4 is well formatted, neutral, and of a reasonable length. The first clause (up to the comma) is from a review in Nature (I verified the source and copied the citation from the end of the paragraph to the end of that sentence). The second clause is cited early in the article "correlations between technology overuse and mental health problems becoming apparent". I feel there's enough separation and qualifiers there that it avoids WP:SYNTH, and the general trend of research for rule H3: "The hook should refer to established facts that are not likely to change". The hook is broadly interesting (esp. to online readers). I feel that the phrasing might be improved slightly, but I see no reason not to pass it now. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

reopening this, as I raised a query at WT:DYK, but the hook is due to go live in less than an hour so no time to discuss. Issue is: TRM has raised the issue that the hook implies that the report into media use by disadvantaged kids was described as "overuse", whereas the source for that research makes no such claim. The hook was approved with a note that it didn't look like WP:SYNTH, but I think I'd disagree with that. The second part of the hook directly references the first, and states a cause and effect that no individual source has mentioned. I'm tempted to pull this one before it goes live at 12:00 UTC today, to allow more time for discussion on this and possibly a better hook. Unless anyone has a strong reason why the above issue is incorrect. Pinging Reidgreg, Maile66, Yoninah, Farang Rak Tham, E.3 who were involved in this one. The text of TRM's finding on this is: the report doesn't describe the level used by disadvantaged kids as "overuse" so nor should we. Plus it's a bit of a non-hook because "may affect their mental health" works both ways, indeed, the report highlights the fact that "a growing body of research conducted over the past decade suggests that time online can actually benefit young people." Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I am the GA reviewer, so I have no business approving any hooks at this point per discussion above. Good luck with it though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there was quite a few reviewers that were happy with ALT4. However I have tried to address the concerns with some rephrases here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 09:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Also please note that ALT4 isn't suggesting cause and effect, simply that it may or may not affect in a positive or a negative way, and I think that is hooky enough to be interesting. --[E.3][chat2][me] 09:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I identified the issue but came to the wrong conclusion. Thanks for pulling it, Amakuru. (No idea who TRM is. Oh, probably The Rambling Man.) Proofread the new hooks. For ALT4a, the fact is interesting but the tie-in to link the article is a bit weak (suggest rephrasing to "three more hours"). I prefer ALT5c, and wading through the sources verified that at least two of the six support the statement for males/video games and two for females/social media. It looks like the objections to ALT5/a were about scholarly language, which isn't a problem with ALT5c. Is it clear enough? ... that research into digital media use and mental health has found that females are more likely to develop social media overuse and [that] males [are more likely to develop] video game overuse? I added the bits in square brackets, which was assumed, but its absence is ungrammatical. It comes to just within the 200 character limit with this included. (Changing "and that males" to "while males" would probably be better.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Great thanks. Reworded with your suggestions to ALT4b and ALT5d. --[E.3][chat2][me] 08:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
One last thing: do you want to put in a "(pictured)" for the image? (It does not count against the hook's character limit.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Approve ALT4b, 5b, 5d: Article checks per earlier review, no problem edits to article since then, no copyvio or other problems detected. Image is still in article and PD. Hooks are cited at sentence, verified to reliable sources, neutral and broadly interesting. I feel the "unknown effects" leaves ALT4b a bit weaker than the others, and I personally prefer ALT5d which squeaks in at 184 characters. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT5d, but I don't see anything about males overusing video games in any of the sources. Even if I don't select that hook, how can that fact be stated in the article that way? Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Citation 19 in the article has 6 sources; give me a minute to check which ones apply for that part. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Okay, the first source has the main difference between the Internet addiction and gaming addiction is the strong association of problematic online gaming with being male and SMA [social media addiction] in our study was associated with being female and with functions that can only be associated with social media. The second source in the citation has In terms of gender, psychotherapists treating technology-use related addictions suggest SNS [social networking site] addiction may be more common in female rather than male patients. Source 5 has Studies generally agree that males report more problems related to video gaming compared to females and The results of the present study are in line with previous research stating that males report more problems with gaming than females (Brunborg et al. 2013; Ferguson et al. 2011; Mentzoni et al. 2011). Males were in the present study were 2.9 times more likely than females to belong to the addicted gamers category. Source 6 has Results demonstrated that lower age, being female, being single, being a student, lower education, lower income, lower self-esteem, and narcissism were associated with higher scores on the BSMAS [Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale] and The results were also consistent with demographic predictions and associations taken from central theories concerning “addiction”, indicating that females may tend to develop more addictive use of activities involving social interaction than males. Is found too strong a word in the hook? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • From Hawi and colleagues the secondary source of the rest of the citations: Studies have shown gender to be a predictor of social media use. Specifically, women were more likely to be addicted to social media use and texting, and men were more likely to be addicted to video gaming (Van Deursen et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015; Wittek et al. 2015; Andreassen, Pallesen, and Griffiths 2017). The gender differences reported in these studies support the suggestion to replace the concept, Internet addiction, with descriptions of specific online activities (Starcevic and Aboujaoude 2016; Van Rooij et al. 2017). --[E.3][chat2][me] 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think found is too strong a word, given its replication in all the cited studies. Another ALT5e - to "have" rather than to "develop", also ALT5f to "overuse social media" and "overuse video games". The difficulty is in the lack of expert consensus on the definitions, however either of these wordings, IMO allow us to both provide the interesting information without becoming overly technical. --[E.3][chat2][me] 08:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Adding my tick: Approve ALT5e, 5f. I see your point about develop. It's a subtle difference, but these new ones may be more technically accurate in their wording. 5f is the shortest of the 5d–f series. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for outlining all the studies, Reidgreg. But if we promote ALT5e or f, the grammar is kind of weird. People don't "have overuse" or "overuse video games". Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Yoninah: 5e uses overuse as a noun (:too much use : excessive or too frequent use) while 5f uses it as a verb (: to use [something] too much : to use [something] excessively or too frequently).Merriam-Webster For have in 5e, I was thinking along the lines of 'exhibiting a characteristic' (I have red hair) or 'being afflicted by' (I have a headache). 5e might be clearer if we hyphenated the compound modifiers (e.g.: social-media overuse). It might also be less awkward if have was paired with the less-ambiguous addiction, if you think the sources are strong enough to support that. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reidgreg: I'm not following you. Could write alts instead? To me "having social-media overuse" sounds like "having a cold", which doesn't follow. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

With this alts it's clear that the terminology is evolving in the literature. However, the previous wiki consensus for smartphone addiction and social media addiction is to call it problematic social media use, reasons outlined in the page. However, consensus is against using gaming disorder for video game addiction at this time (gaming disorder is recognised by ICD-11). This is why to avoid being bogged down in the terminology scholarly debate for the hook, I simply use the commonly understood "social media overuse" and "video game overuse". I'm happy for any alt. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • 5h is 208 characters and 5j is 206 characters (the limit is 200). We may have to seek wider consensus to exceed the 200-character limit to use these preferred terms. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • All things considered I would suggest 5f or 5g then, which keep within character limits. 5f is less scholarly and more accessible, grammatically correct in using "overuse" as a verb. 5g is more scholarly but also readable, if a reader doesn't know what gaming disorder is, they can click through. --[E.3][chat2][me] 07:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Struck 5e for awkward language (have ... overuse), struck 5h & 5j as too long. I also feel that 5f and 5g are the better choices, and that even if the reader doesn't know what the terms mean in a clinical sense, they'll still get what the hook is saying about the gender split between serious issues with social media and with video games. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Approve ALT 4b, 5b, 5d, 5f, 5g, 5i. Note to promoter: the terminology in this field is changing; while local consensus has been found on the articles, some variation is provided in ALTs for the main page. Nominator suggests using 5f or 5g, but would be happy with any of them. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you point out the sentences with inline cites that support ALT5g and ALT5g? All I see is a sentence about a Malaysian study which mentions the sexes but not the disorders. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Here under Problematic use. Several studies have shown that women are more likely to overuse social media, and men video games.[19] This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and colleagues to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling to delineate proposed disorders based on the type of digital media used.[20] Hawi and colleagues say it clearest: Studies have shown gender to be a predictor of social media use. Specifically, women were more likely to be addicted to social media use and texting, and men were more likely to be addicted to video gaming (Van Deursen et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015; Wittek et al. 2015; Andreassen, Pallesen, and Griffiths 2017). The gender differences reported in these studies support the suggestion to replace the concept, Internet addiction, with descriptions of specific online activities (Starcevic and Aboujaoude 2016; Van Rooij et al. 2017). --[E.3][chat2][me] 18:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Restoring tick per Reidgreg's review. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Algorithmic bias in see also

Hi @Farang Rak Tham: thanks again. I just removed that because the article wasn't really referring to algorithmic bias after we removed the journalists opinion about google search algorithms, ie. the below discussion:

  • First, you have to introduce the moral panic you're talking about first. You mention it briefly in the lead, but you never really explain what kind of moral panic occurred. Secondly, it isn't quite clear how search engines focusing on popularity lead to moral panic. It would seem you are skipping one or more variables here. Thirdly, stating that Google only uses popularity as a sorting criterion needs multiple good sources, since it flies against what is generally known about Google, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

Then I replied I'm going to remove the journalists as they're not experts. There's a plethora of expert opinion referring to moral panic but I think I'll just leave it to the one internet addiction review in history and terminology.

  • Not fussed about inclusion or removal what do you think? --E.3 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am okay either way, but just explain it sufficiently please. Thanks --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OK thanks. I'll remove it because its a little confusing without going into the google algorithms, which as you noted in the review is difficult for me to do within scope with sources mentioning mental health (WP:SYNTH issues) --E.3 (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/Archive_2"